Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-16 Filed 03/20/20 Page 1 of 5
`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-16 Filed 03/20/20 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 14
`
`EXHIBIT 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-16 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 5
`Case 4:11-cv-06357-YGR Document 107 Filed 12/31/12 Page 1 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`AND RELATED COUNTER-CLAIM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 11-CV-06357 YGR
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`
`
`Ancora Technologies, Inc. (“Ancora”) alleges that devices that run Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”)
`
`iOS operating system infringe on U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 (the “ ’941 Patent”). Apple has
`
`counterclaimed for declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity.
`
`The parties have requested the Court construe seven claim terms/phrases from the ’941
`
`Patent: (1) “volatile memory”; (2) “non-volatile memory”; (3) “BIOS”; (4) “program”; (5) “license
`
`record”; (6) “verifying the program using at least the verification structure”; and (7) whether the
`
`steps in the asserted claims must be performed in a specific order. On June 29, 2012, the parties
`
`provided a technology tutorial and on July 11, 2012, the Court held a claim construction hearing.
`
`Based upon the papers submitted, the argument of counsel, for the reasons set forth below,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`24
`
`the Court provides the following claim construction.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The patent in suit relates to software anti-piracy technology. At issue here is technology
`
`directed at preventing computer users from copying software and then running that software without
`
`28
`
`a license. Ancora is the owner of the ’941 Patent, which claims a method of restricting software
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-16 Filed 03/20/20 Page 3 of 5
`Case 4:11-cv-06357-YGR Document 107 Filed 12/31/12 Page 19 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`means “using at least,” as Ancora urges, or whether “using at least” means “by comparing the
`
`license record extracted from the program to the license record in,” as Apple urges.
`
`Ancora argues that a comparison between the license record extracted from the program and
`
`the license record in the verification structure is not required, while Apple argues verification is not
`
`possible without such a comparison. Apple argues that the specification describes the verification
`
`process, which includes a comparison between the license record extracted from the program and the
`
`license record in the verification structure. Ancora notes that the specification describes multiple
`
`examples of techniques to verify a program, including verification by determining whether a
`
`particular program is “compatible” with the license record. (’941 Patent, 3:38-41.) According to
`
`10
`
`Ancora, “comparison” is not required for this compatibility verification.
`
`11
`
`The Court cannot find any limitation in the Claim or specification that verifying a program
`
`12
`
`requires a “comparison.” Indeed, Apple’s proposed construction renders the claim language “at
`
`13
`
`least” meaningless. Based on the foregoing, the Court will adopt Ancora’s proposed construction of
`
`14
`
`the disputed claim phrase:
`
`Confirming whether a program is licensed using at least the verification structure.
`
`F.
`
`SEVENTH DISPUTED CLAIM TERM/ PHRASE – ALL ASSERTED CLAIMS
`
`The parties dispute whether the claimed steps must be performed in a specific order to
`
`infringe on the ’941 Patent. The parties’ proposed constructions are shown below:
`
`
`APPLE’S PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`The steps in each asserted claim
`must be performed in the order
`recited.
`
`ANCORA’S PROPOSED
`CONSTRUCTION
`Unless the steps of a method
`actually recite an order, the claim
`is not limited to performance of
`the steps in the order recited.
`
`“Unless the steps of a method actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed
`
`to require one. However, such a result can ensue when the method steps implicitly require that they
`
`be performed in the order written.” Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369-70 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2003) (quoting Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2001)). “First, we look to the claim language to determine if, as a matter of logic or grammar, they
`
`must be performed in the order written. … If not, we next look to the rest of the specification to
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`19
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-16 Filed 03/20/20 Page 4 of 5
`Case 4:11-cv-06357-YGR Document 107 Filed 12/31/12 Page 20 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`determine whether it ‘directly or implicitly requires such a narrow construction.’ If not, the
`
`sequence in which such steps are written is not a requirement.” Id.
`
`Apple argues that there is only one possible sequence to perform the steps in Claim 1, the
`
`order recited. “In this case, nothing in the claim or the specification directly or implicitly requires
`
`such a narrow construction.” Id. As Ancora points out, Apple’s proposed construction is contrary to
`
`the express teachings of the ’941 Patent. In the Summary of the Invention, the ’941 Patent teaches
`
`an embodiment of the invention in which the first step to be performed is setting up the verification
`
`structure. (’941 Patent 1:59-65.) In contrast to the express teachings of the ’941 Patent, Apple
`
`argues that the first step is to select a program and the second step is setting up the verification
`
`10
`
`structure. Nothing in the ’941 Patent directly or implicitly requires that the steps be performed in the
`
`11
`
`order recited.
`
`12
`
`Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court will not construe the claim to require the steps be
`
`13
`
`performed in the order written.
`
`14
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`15
`
`For the reasons set forth above, the Court provides the following construction of the disputed
`
`16
`
`claim terms/phrases:
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERM/PHRASE
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`volatile memory
`
`non-volatile memory
`
`BIOS
`
`program
`
`license record
`
`Memory whose data is not maintained when the power
`is removed.
`
`Memory whose data is maintained when the power is
`removed.
`
`An acronym for Basic Input/Output System. It is the
`set of essential startup operations that run when a
`computer is turned on, which tests hardware, starts the
`operating system, and supports the transfer of data
`among hardware devices.
`
`A set of instructions for software applications that can
`be executed by a computer.
`
`A record from a licensed program with information
`for verifying that licensed program.
`
`20
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 45-16 Filed 03/20/20 Page 5 of 5
`Case 4:11-cv-06357-YGR Document 107 Filed 12/31/12 Page 21 of 21
`
`
`
`verifying the program using at least the
`verification structure
`
`Confirming whether a program is licensed using at
`least the verification structure.
`
`All Asserted Claims
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Date: December 31, 2012
`
`
`
`
`
`The steps of the Claim do not need to be performed in
`the order recited.
`
` ______________________________________
` YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
`
`21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`